Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3896 (MAD)

United India Insurance v. P. Thiyagarajan

2013-11-12

S.VIMALA

body2013
Judgment 1. The appeal is by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded as exorbitant. 2. The claimant, Thiyagarajan, aged 28 years, a Marketing Executive, employed under Sri Barani Autos, Namakkal, earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, met with an accident on 07.04.2005. In respect of the injuries sustained, he filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, awarded compensation of Rs.4,03,066/-, as per the following break-up details: Heads Amount (Rs.) For 30% disability, (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 30/100) 3,24,000/- Pain and suffering 10,000/- Nutrition 5,000/- Transport 2,000/- Medical expenses as per Ex.A6 37,066/- Loss of income for 5 months 25,000/- Total 4,03,066/- 4. While quantifying the compensation in respect of loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier method. Adopting the multiplier method in respect of disability of 30% is under challenge in this appeal by the insurance company. 5. The claimant herein has filed M.P.No.1 of 2013 under order 41 Rule 27 CPC., seeking to adduce additional evidence with reference to documents filed. Documents marked by consent as Exs.P.9 to P.12, vide order dated today (12.11.2013). 6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the nature of injuries sustained and the percentage of disability. Perusal of the records would reveal that the claimant has suffered the following injuries: 1. Fracture on the left maxilla, 2. Fracture on the left lygoma, 3. Fracture lat. wall of orbit left, 4. .. (illegible), 5. Diffuse cerebral column and 6. .. (illegible) The evidence of the doctor, P.W.2, would reveal that the claimant suffered head injury and there had been blood-clot on the right side of the brain. The evidence would further reveal that there is fracture in the upper jaw. All the injuries are stated to be grievous in nature. The doctor has assessed the disability at 30%. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the disability is only 30%, the Tribunal is not justified in adopting the multiplier method of quantification. This objection is well taken and the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method of quantification. 8. However, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the consequences on account of head injury, even though extracted in the judgment, has not been appropriately compensated by the Claims Tribunal. This objection is well taken and the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method of quantification. 8. However, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the consequences on account of head injury, even though extracted in the judgment, has not been appropriately compensated by the Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel pointed out the detailed discussion made in paragraph 11 of the order of the Tribunal, wherein it has been mentioned that because of the head injury, the claimant was suffering from loss of memory, headache, giddiness and inability to concentrate on his work. These kind of problems are nagging problems. These problems, like other physical fractures, may not be visible to the human eye, but it will be very difficult to adjust with those problems and to concentrate on the day-to-day activities. 8.1. Considering the invisible nature of the consequences of the disability on account of head injury, appropriate compensation ought to have been awarded for loss of enjoyment of amenities. Literally, the claimant had become a dependant and there is no confidence to act independently. Therefore, loss of enjoyment of amenities is awarded at Rs.60,000/-. 9. For disability of 30%, as per the normal practice of awrading Rs.2,000/- per percentage, compensation is awarded at Rs.60,000/-. 10. Considering the nature and period of treatment, pain and suffering is awarded at Rs.25,000/-. Medical expenses, as supported by bills, is awarded at Rs.35,066/-, rounded to Rs.35,000/-. For extra nutrition, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, for attendant expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/-, for transport expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- and for future medical expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- are awarded. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that he was not able to go for his job at least for a period of one year. The Tribunal has fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/-. Considering the fact that there is loss of income for one year, it is quantified at Rs.60,000/-. Thus, the total compensation awarded is Rs.2,90,000/-. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, reducing the award of compensation from Rs.4,03,066/- to Rs.2,90,000/-. It is represented that the insurance company has already deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest and cost. At the time of admission, the claimant was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, reducing the award of compensation from Rs.4,03,066/- to Rs.2,90,000/-. It is represented that the insurance company has already deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest and cost. At the time of admission, the claimant was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest. In view of the order passed now modifying the award, the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the balance, as per the order passed now, along with proportionate interest. After the withdrawal by the claimant, the insurance company will be entitled to withdraw the remaining amount. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.